New York White Collar Crime Law Blog

If you think it is illegal for a sitting governor to accept $175,000 in loans, various gifts and other benefits from an individual trying to obtain assistance from the state in building his business, you would be dead wrong -- at least according to a Supreme Court decision from last summer titled McDonnell v. United States.

In this case, the Supreme Court significantly raised the bar for prosecuting bribery and corruption cases, thereby making it more difficult to convict public officials. And even though this case is barely a year old, it is already impacting the outcomes of cases throughout the United States, including public corruption cases here in New York.

On behalf of Miedel & Mysliwiec LLP posted in blog on Wednesday, October 18, 2017.

When an individual is convicted of certain federal crimes, the government will typically argue that this person must forfeit any property used in the commission of the crime as well as any proceeds and/or property obtained as a result of the alleged offense.

However, in a recent unanimous decision titled Honeycutt v. U.S., the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the federal criminal forfeiture statutes can only be applied to “property the defendant himself actually acquired as the result of the” alleged offense.

On behalf of Miedel & Mysliwiec LLP posted in blog on Friday, August 4, 2017.

Criminal law and extraterritorial jurisdiction

At first glance, one would think that allegedly criminal acts occurring outside the United States could not be subject to prosecution inside the United States. This assumption is not always true. Indeed, extraterritorial jurisdiction, as this concept is known, is increasingly used by the United States to prosecute both US citizens living and working abroad, as well as foreign nationals who have no connection to the United States.

Even though both Congress and the new administration are loudly advocating for deregulation, health care professionals and businesses continue to face a complicated array of federal and state laws and regulations. Failure to comply with these laws can have profoundly negative consequences. One such consequence unique to the health care field is the List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE). Often, even well-intentioned, experienced health care providers make mistakes in trying to comply with regulations, resulting in listing on the LEIE.

Miedel & Mysliwiec, LLP regularly represents doctors, small medical offices, and other health care providers in criminal or civil cases that raise issues related to the exclusion process. Even when there is a successful outcome for such a client in a criminal case or civil false claims act case, that client may face the threat of exclusion.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), administers the LEIE. Any individual or business placed on the LEIE is excluded from participating in any federal health care program. The federal government will not reimburse anyone in the LEIE for services. Moreover, entities that employ or hire individuals on the LEIE face substantial financial penalties. The OIG maintains and regularly updates its LEIE database.

This case, which was featured in the New York Times, serves as a prime example of why the special prosecutor law in New York must be reformed. Here, an attorney who had been criticized by an appellate court for his prior performance as a special prosecutor was, inexplicably, again appointed to that role, this time to investigate purported campaign improprieties in a 2009 City Council election in Staten Island. The request for a special prosecutor by the Staten Island District Attorney and the reasons therefor remain under seal. The selection process for how this particular lawyer was chosen similarly remains hidden from view. Transparency in the selection process should be the first step toward reform.

Whether it is for business or for pleasure, people travel for many different reasons. While traveling internationally is often a positive and relatively pain-free experience, it can be hindered by some things and even prevented altogether by others. One of the primary issues that has the potential to prevent international travel is a criminal history.

Even though there are many criminal convictions that will have no impact whatsoever on an individual's ability to leave the country or to enter another, there are certain convictions that may limit a person's opportunities to travel and there are some that may prevent certain types of travel.

It's tax season, and with only two weeks until the dreaded Tax Day is upon us, it is time to discuss two different tax offenses that often get confused for one another. Tax negligence and tax fraud are two terms that get thrown around when the month of April rolls around. So what's the difference between the two and what do you need to know about these particular cases?

The first thing to know is that a very small portion of tax filings end up being investigated and ultimately yield charges of tax negligence or tax fraud. The IRS estimates that only about .0022 percent of tax filings result in criminal charges. Tax fraud is the more serious of the two offenses.